Dr. Willie Soon: a Career Fueled by Koch, Big Oil and Coal

When climate denier and astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon wrote a controversial paper in 2003 that attempted to challenge the historical temperature records, we all raised eyebrows at revelations that the American Petroleum Institute funded it.

When he co-wrote a (non-peer reviewed) paper in 2007 arguing that Arctic warming wasn't happening and polar bears were not threatened by the effects of it, we found that ExxonMobil and the billionaire Koch brothers had paid for it.

So we went digging and came up with more – a whole lot more, released today in the new case study: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal. Not only did Big Oil punt hundreds of thousands of dollars to Soon, but Big Coal as well – specifically, the Southern Company, one of the largest coal burning electric utilities in the U.S. and in the world.

Could this be why Soon (an astrophysicist) has been recently writing op-eds on how mercury is harmless and the mercury emissions from coal are minimal, with a byline saying that he has a strong expertise in mercury and public health.

Soon has been relying on the fossil fuel industry for most of his career. Documents obtained from his employer, the Smithsonian Astrophysics Observatory (SAO), show that he has received no new funding from conventional, university sources since 2002.

Since then, it’s been all about the Southern Company, a Koch brothers' foundation, ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute – totalling over $1 million since 2001. Together with his colleague at the SAO, Sallie Baliunas, they brought in $1,153,000 since 2001 and only $842,000 from conventional sources.

Were these companies working together? The API started funding Soon's work as far back as 1994 (he only graduated in 1991). The API was later joined by the Mobil Foundation, then by the electricity industry’s research arm, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). The U.S. electricity sector is dominated by coal.

In 1998, the API, ExxonMobil and the Southern Company sat round a table with other oil companies and think tanks they plotted and funded a Global Climate Science Communications Plan to undermine the climate science and support for the Kyoto Protocol that had just been agreed. "Victory will be achieved when... average citizens 'understand' (recognize) uncertainties in climate science"... read the plan. "Uncertainty" was also their objective for the media. The detail funding sources from corporate purses going to think tanks and front groups who will coach scientists with messages counter to the rising consensus on the global warming crisis. Even though this 'scandal' was front page news at the New York Times, our assumption is they did it anyway.

So when they saw that Willie Soon was writing papers to try to show that it was the sun, not the increase in carbon dioxide, that was causing warming in the Arctic, did they then get together to ensure he got the funding for his work? Did they consider Soon (and Baliunas) a good investment for their corporations?

In around 2003, Soon saw that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was beginning work on its next summary of climate science, the Fourth Assessment (AR4). Another document obtained by Greenpeace was a letter to colleagues hatching a plan to undermine the outcomes of the report, focusing on Working Group 1 (the science). "… I hope we can start discussing among ourselves to see what we can do to weaken the fourth assessment report..." he wrote.

The letter was addressed to a range of climate deniers, but also to two people we can't find in our database of denier "scientists". The only names we can find that match two of the addressees – "Walt" and "Randy" – were the two Exxon staffers who had been at the centre of funding the denial campaign. Indeed, Randy Randol was the Exxon man sitting at the table plotting with the others in 1998.

Willie Soon has been embraced by the denial industry. This week will see him speak, again, at the Heartland Institute's annual "Denialpalooza". The "sponsors" of that meeting and organizations the speakers work for have received millions in funding from ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, the Scaife Foundation and other corporate, 'free-market' and anti-government, anti-regulation funders. (more on that soon)

Meanwhile, Exxon has cut funding to a large number of climate deniers. Late yesterday, Exxon released its latest "Worldwide Giving Report", over a month overdue. It reveals that more career climate deniers have been dismissed by their major funder, ExxonMobil Foundation. What was a peak Exxon funding level of $3.5Million per year to these mouthpieces of climate denial, is now below $1M per year. Exxon IS still funding deniers like Heritage Foundation and American Legislative Exchange Council, but major deniers like the Annapolis Center, Atlas Foundation and others have now apparently been cut, as of 2010.

Funding to Dr. Soon at Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory has also been cut according to responses from Exxon in news reports today:

Kert directs Greenpeace's research team. He works closely with investigative journalists and frequently represents Greenpeace at international climate negotiations and scientific conferences. Kert has also partnered with major global corporations to help them implement solutions to global environmental problems.

Suppose you are told a loved one is dying. You ask yourself how, why, and are you sure, this can’t be, say it’s not true! After all, you don’t WANT th...

Suppose you are told a loved one is dying. You ask yourself how, why, and are you sure, this can’t be, say it’s not true! After all, you don’t WANT this disturbing news to be true.
So why do we NOT ask the same questions and react the same “civilized” way when “scientists” tell us the end is near for the planet if we don’t stop the Earth from heating? Just how can we so flippantly condemn our very own children and billions of other children to a CO2 death with such blind obedience with no questions asked? In fact, we immediately go into defense mode and attack non-believers as being evil deniers and corporate shills. We point to an enemy of an opposing political ideology on the right and preach CO2 climate defense like bible thumping and fear mongering neocons. It’s been 25 years of nobody acting like it’s the planetary emergency they say it is and so I can’t’ do this anymore. I am a former believer. There is enough evidence to show that scientific consensus was exaggerated for politically correct reasons, will go unpunished as it wasn’t a crime, only theory. And since Obama didn’t even mention the “CRISIS’ in his state of the union speech, count me out. I’m a liberal and a planet lover but I have removed the CO2 factor from the entire environmental equation. I preach good stewardship and encourage others to face future with courage, not fear of the unknown. If we spent us much time loving and experiencing the planet as we do declaring it sick, dying, weak, fragile and in danger from Humans, the more Nature may not have to remind us just who is really in charge. Remove the CO2 and continue stewardship anew.
Remember, Climate Change was a CO2 death warrant, not sustainability or pollution, or energy or waste or population. Meanwhile, the UN and the SCIENCE world had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 25 years of climate control instead of the obviously needed population control. We still have those issues but the spear of death has been removed from our backs. The new denier is anyone who still thinks voters will vote YES to the scientists telling us to tax the air to make the weather colder.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

(Unregistered) SumItUp
says:

In order to salvage and protect their OWN credibility, a modest proposal to all authors, publishers, approval-boards of scientific research and findin...

In order to salvage and protect their OWN credibility, a modest proposal to all authors, publishers, approval-boards of scientific research and findings in all disciplines:

TITLE:
Addition, Revision of Citation Requirement, "Funding" for Consideration of Publication Approval; and a New "Science Seal of Approval"

PURPOSE:
To ensure the credibility and integrity of processes, information, and facts of scientific research and findings under review for publication. Moreover, to provide non-science publishers of media and the public, a rapid means of identifying information that meets the strict requirements for publication approval by the scientific communities.

SPECIFICATIONS FOR CITATION REQUIREMENT:
All documents must contain a single citation including the following information:
1. Names and addresses of all original sources of funds to conduct the research, listed in order of greatest amount to least with the appropriate percentage following each name to equal 100%;
2. Following, in order of the above names, a listing of the specific dollar-amounts contributed by each;
3. Any qualifying notations if needed; and
4. The "Funding" citation shall be entered as the first item in the reference listing.

PROCEDURE:
Documents submitted for publication consideration and found to meet the strict procedural-requirements of the scientific community, including the additional, revised "Funding" citation shall:
1. Receive a new "Science Seal of Approval" that signifies all requirements have been met;
2. Acts as a rapid identifier for all non-science publishers and the public that the information and findings have been reviewed for potential conflict-of-interests and approved by the scientific community; and
3. The "Science Seal of Approval" may be used by the research authors, organizations, and funding sources to signify their contributions to society.

Post a comment

To post a comment you need to be signed in.

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

(Unregistered) Ronita
says:

When will Greenpeace investigate The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Federation, and Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, EarthJustice, PETA, Humane Society of The United States, and OK – all eco-criminals, and thereby identify every penny these groups get in federal subsidies?
If what Greenpeace claims re: Willie Soon, then I’d have to give a big handshake and “Thank you free-market, free enterprise companies! Not only do you provide real products, jobs, and services, you support real scientific research!”
This is far more acceptable than the before mentioned groups getting federal welfare to engage in what government does best; generate toxic political waste that pollutes millions of minds, kills initiative, entrepreneurship, and creativity, drives jobs overseas, steals private property and shuts down domestic resource production…to mention a mere handful.
Oh. And does Greenpeace get government welfare?

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

(Unregistered) Ronita
says:

When will Greenpeace investigate The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Federation, and Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, EarthJustice, PE...

When will Greenpeace investigate The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Federation, and Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, EarthJustice, PETA, Humane Society of The United States, and OK – all eco-criminals, and thereby identify every penny these groups get in federal subsidies?
If what Greenpeace claims re: Willie Soon, then I’d have to give a big handshake and “Thank you free-market, free enterprise companies! Not only do you provide real products, jobs, and services, you support real scientific research!”
This is far more acceptable than the before mentioned groups getting federal welfare to engage in what government does best; generate toxic political waste that pollutes millions of minds, kills initiative, entrepreneurship, and creativity, drives jobs overseas, steals private property and shuts down domestic resource production…to mention a mere handful.
Oh. And does Greenpeace get government welfare?

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

(Unregistered) Uthink?
says:

Ronita,

Your mind seems to only comprehend one concept which is the human-created economic system. It's a fake system that does not foll...

Ronita,

Your mind seems to only comprehend one concept which is the human-created economic system. It's a fake system that does not follow any laws of physics, biology, or anything that the physical world revolves around. It is a system that is meant to concentrate wealth and create scarcity. Your ramblings about free trade, jobs, and the free market has absolutely nothing to do with the systems that keep ALL life on earth thriving.

It's really sad to see blatant the lack of critical thinking that is so rampant among our population. Lack of higher thinking has left your brain only being able to handle simple concepts like "us " vs "them" or "big government" vs "us" without ever being able to take a more broad view of reality. Ah, the U.S. school education.....

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

(Unregistered) Try2think
says:

Wow! Ronita and Mememine6969:

It's truly scary how ignorant and/or egocentric John Q Public is.

The sad thing is that there ...

Wow! Ronita and Mememine6969:

It's truly scary how ignorant and/or egocentric John Q Public is.

The sad thing is that there are too many sheeple and to few
critical thinkers.

Ronita rambles on about the wonders of our economic system. Earth to Ronita, it's a man-made concept simply to create wealth for a small percentage by creating scarcity of supply. It has absolutely no relevance to how physics, biology, and the environment systems of nature work. It's truly sad that the basic U.S. High school education limited people's ability to critically think. They can only handle concepts of "us" vs "them" or Yankees vs Red Sox.

Mememine6969, do you have any clue to the state of the earth? The mass extinction of species going on at this moment? The pollution of our air and oceans? If your mind can't process all the abundant information available, perhaps it's best to just go back to watching Jersey Shore and pretending that we humans are doing a wonderful job of earth stewardship.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

(Unregistered) Jenis
says:

You have some really good ideas in this article. I am glad I read this. I agree with much of what you state in this article. Your information is thoug...

You have some really good ideas in this article. I am glad I read this. I agree with much of what you state in this article. Your information is thought-provoking, interesting and well-written. Thank you.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

(Unregistered) Yuva
says:

This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I love seeing websites that understand the value of providing a qu...

This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I love seeing websites that understand the value of providing a quality resource for free. It?s the old what goes around comes around routine. Did you acquired lots of links and I see lots of trackbacks??
Latest Jobs

Blog Comments

All comments on the Greenpeace blogs are moderated before they appear on the site, and this takes time. We appreciate your patience and ask that you refrain from posting the same comment repeatedly. When posting a blog comment, please be respectful and follow our policy.

Want to learn more about tax-deductible giving, donating stock and estate planning? Visit Greenpeace Fund, a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) charitable entity created to increase public awareness and understanding of environmental issues through research, the media and educational programs.